separation emacs-common into more packages

Przemek Klosowski przemek.klosowski at
Tue Sep 10 18:06:48 UTC 2013

On 09/10/2013 10:06 AM, 80 wrote:
> as an emacs user, splitting emacs-common has little value to me, and 
> without a package requiring most of the splitted packages, it might 
> even turn into an annoyance (much like texlive).

Yeah, 4872  packages reported by repoquery texlive*. That's over 12% of 
the total number of Fedora packages (38413).

At first, I thought that it has an excessive number of small 
packages---about half of texlive packages are smaller than 50kB. It 
turns out, however, that it is par for the course in Fedora; 41% of all 
packages are smaller than 50kB.

In fact, as you can see from the attached histogram comparing  the size 
distribution of Fedora and texlive packages, both distributions peak 
around 20kB, which I suspect may be due to RPM packaging overhead rather 
than the inherent payload size.

Is it reasonable to have so many small packages, especially if, as is 
the case of texlive, they are closely related? Are there any guidelines 
for when some sort of bundling is appropriate?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: sizeDist.png
Type: image/png
Size: 37004 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the devel mailing list